[2013] KEELRC 322 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 322 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant was employed from February 2010 as a casual and later as a supervisor, with his employment converting to a monthly contract after continuous service. The Respondent failed to produce credible employment records or disprove the Claimant's evidence regarding the period and terms of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELRC 322 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Dan Billy Ouma Amito; Respondent: Bake ‘N’ Bite Mombasa Road
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 41 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant; termination declared unfair; monetary award granted.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Overtime Pay, Notice Pay, Leave Entitlement, Burden of Proof Employment Terms
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Overtime Pay Notice Pay Leave Entitlement Burden of Proof Employment Terms

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dan Billy Ouma Amito

Claimant

Bake ‘N’ Bite Mombasa Road

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 When was the Claimant employed and on what terms of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to the prayers sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant was employed from February 2010 as a casual and later as a supervisor, with his employment converting to a monthly contract after continuous service. The Respondent failed to produce credible employment records or disprove the Claimant's evidence regarding the period and terms of employment. The termination was found to be both substantively and procedurally unfair: the stated reason of non-performance was not substantiated, and the Claimant was not given an opportunity to defend himself as required by law. The Respondent did not prove payment of terminal dues, and the discharge voucher evidence was inconclusive. The Claimant was entitled to salary for...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant; termination declared unfair; monetary award granted.

Orders

  • A declaration that the Claimant was unfairly terminated by the Respondent.
  • The Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs.229,200.